ORDER
1. The writ petitioner, who was promoted as Traffic Inspector Grade-II with effect from September 22, 1987, filed this writ petition questioning his retirement on attaining the age of 58 years. He claims that he is entitled to continue in service till he completes the age of 60 years, which is the age of superannuation applicable to him.
2. The relevant facts are as follows :-
The petitioner was originally appointed as a Conductor temporarily in the Road Transport Department, which was on integral part of the ex-Nizam State Railway, on April 30, 1952. He was promoted as an Assistant Depot Clerk in the year 1967 and thereafter he was promoted as Traffic Inspector Grade-II with effect from September 22, 1987. He was retired with effect from October 31, 1987 on the ground that he attained the age of Superannuation viz., 58 years.
3. This writ petition is filed questioning the same and contending that he is entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years viz., till October 31, 1989. He relies for this purpose on Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules, which is as follows :-
“The date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant in superior and inferior service is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years and 60 years respectively. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but a Government servant in superior service must be retired after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances.
Provided that a workmen, whether in superior or in inferior service, who is governed by these rules shall ordinarily be retained in service up to the age of 60 years. He may, however, be required to retire at any time after attaining the age of 55 years after giving a month’s notice, or a month’s pay in lieu thereof, on the ground of impaired health or of being negligent or inefficient in the discharge of his duties. He also may retire at any time after attaining the age of 55 years, by giving one month’s notice in writing.”
This Rule 231 was ultimately omitted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act”). While omitting Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules, a similar provision is made in Section 3 of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 3 is as follows :-
“Age of superannuation” – (1) Every Government employee, not being a workman and not belonging to Last Grade Service, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty five years.
(2) Every Government employee not being a workman but belonging to the Last Grade Service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.
(3) Every workman whether in superior or last grade service, or in any service notified as inferior shall ordinarily be retained in service up to the age of sixty years :
Provided that any workman may be required to retire at any time after attaining the age of fifty-five years after given one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu thereof, on the ground of impaired health or of being negligent or inefficient in the discharge of duties :
Provided further that a workman may also retire at any time after attaining the age of fifty-five years, by giving one month’s notice in writing.
Explanation I :- In this section the word “workman” means a highly skilled, or semiskilled or unskilled artisan in industrial and work-charged establishments of Government.
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx”
4. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Explanation-I to Section 3 of the Act. To decide this question viz., whether the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Explanation-I to Section 3 of the Act, we have to necessarily decide as to who is an ‘artisan’ Explanation-I to Section 3 of the Act days that ‘workman’ means a highly skilled, or semi-skilled or unskilled artisan in industrial and work-charged establishments of Government. It is not disputed that the 1st respondent-organisation is an industrial establishment. Therefore, the only question that has to be decided is whether the petitioner answers the description of ‘artisan’, whether highly skilled or semi-skilled or unskilled, to fall within the meaning of ‘workman’.
5. 5. Sri Feelkhana Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is an artisan, whether skilled or semi-skilled or unskilled, and, therefore, satisfies the definition of workmen within the meaning of Explanation-I to Section 3 of the Act. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J, in Writ Petn. No. 7674 of 1979 dated February 24, 1981. The learned Judge was dealing with a case of a person working as Vehicle Inspector. At the relevant time, Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules was in vogue, which is almost in pari materia with Explanation-I to Section 3 of the Act. While construing the said Rule 231, the learned Judge stated that the crucial question to be decided is whether the post of Vehicle Inspector is a post of a workman, and to decide the said question, it has to be found whether the holder of the post can be called an artisan, whether skilled or unskilled. For finding out whether the Vehicle Inspector is an artisan, whether skilled or unskilled, the learned Judge stated that one has to see the nature of duties and the functions of the holder of the said post. After referring to the duties enumerated for a Vehicle Inspector and after referring to the meaning of artisan given in Concise Oxford Dictionary, the learned Judge held that the Vehicle Inspector is an artisan and comes within the definition of “workmen” under Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules and, therefore, entitled to continue till he attains the age of Superannuation i.e. 60 years. The crucial test laid by; the learned Judge in the said case was to find out whether the duties attached to the post are predominantly supervisory or predominantly manual. If they are predominately supervisory, the person will not come within the meaning of artisan and, therefore, not a workman within the meaning of Rule 231. If his duties are predominantly manual, then he will be an artisan coming within the meaning of workman. The learned Judge stated as follows on this aspect in the course of the judgment.
“… In other words, what the Court has to determine is whether the post involves predominantly duties of manual nature or whether the duties involved are predominantly of a supervisory or ministerial nature.”
6. The learned Judge refereed to and followed another judgment of this Court in Shaikh Ali v. Commr. Municipal Corpn. of Hyderabad (1974) 1 Andh LT 93 in coming to the conclusion. Jeevan Reddy J., in the said case came to the conclusion that the duties of the Vehicles Inspector are predominantly manual in nature and, therefore, he answers the description of artisan and held that he was entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years.
7. K. Ramachandra Rao, J., in Shaik Ali’s case (supra) also had an occasion to consider Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules. In the said case, the petitioner was a drainage channel inspector in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. He claimed that he falls within Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules and answers the description of artisan and, therefore, is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. The learned Judge stated that the description given to an employee is not conclusive in determining the nature of the functions assigned to and performed by him and the question whether a persons is a workmen has to be determined with regard to the actual work assigned to and performed by him. Ultimately, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner in that case also performs manual duties and not merely supervisory work. The learned Judge held that the petitioner was an artisan within the meaning of Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules. In coming to the said conclusion, the learned Judge relied upon the duties of the petitioner therein viz., that he was authorised to inspect and control distribution of water for irrigation from Uppal and effluent channels; and report irregularities, which include to regulate the sluices and shutters of Uppal and effluent channels and let out water from sluices, control the distribution of organic matters disposed of from the purification plant, controlling of adjustable sluices, rectify any fault occurring in the said line by technical methods, remove slit by using drainage apparatus, check the concessions in the sewer lines, storm water drains and monitory junctions, etc. On the basis of these duties mentioned above, the learned judge came to the conclusion that he is an artisan and, therefore, a workman within the meaning of Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules.
8. The learned Judge further held that the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be imported into Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules, as Rule 231 itself defines who is a workman. This judgment of the learned judge also is based on the test to be applied with regard to the duties rendered by the petitioner whether they are predominantly supervisory in nature or predominantly manual in nature.
9. The Judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J., in Writ Petn, No, 7674 of 1979 D/- February 24, 1981 was confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 286 of 1981 D/- July 31, 1981. The learned Judges of the Division Bench referred to the definition of the word ‘artisan’ contained in Concise Oxford Dictionary, Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Stround’s Legal Dictionary etc., and came to the conclusion that an artificer is stated to be one who makes something as distinguished from one who only does something as held in Palmer v. Snow, (1990) 2 QB 725. This definition was also adopted by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Maniklal Upadhya v. Ramesh, while considering the word ‘artisan’ occurring in Article 7 of the Limitation Act. In the said case it was held, relying upon the decision in R. Sewaram v. Lachminarayan, (AIR) 1927 Rang 279 and Palmer v. Snow (supra), the word ‘artisan’ was not defined in the Limitation Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is stated to mean and artificer and as such is a person who makes something as distinguished from one who does something.
10. On a consideration of the definition contained in different dictionaries and also the decisions placed before the learned Judges, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the test of ‘predominant nature’ applied by the learned single Judge is the only suitable test in the context of Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules. Taking into consideration the duties of the Vehicle Inspector, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that his duties are predominately manual and, therefore, he is an artisan and as such falls within the definition of ‘workman’.
11. The ratio of the above decision is to find out in a given case as to whether he is discharging predominantly supervisory duties or predominantly manual duties to come within the meaning of ‘artisan’ so as to fall within the definition of “workman”. In view of the above decisions, we have to consider whether the duties attached to the post of Traffic Inspector, Grade II are predominantly supervisory or predominantly manual. If they are predominantly manual, the petitioner will be an “artisan” and falls within the definition of “workman” under Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules. The duties of Traffic Inspector are enumerated in the A.P.S.R.T.C. Staff Operation Manual which are as follows :
“53. 11 DUTIES OF SHIFT TRAFFIC INSPECTORS AT DEPOTS :
1. He shall prepare monthly duty chart of conductors and drivers and arrange for display of the Charts at least 3 days before the commercement of the month.
2. He shall book duties of spare staff over in place of absentees every day in the spare duty chart one day in advance.
3. He shall maintain the (attendance register) musters of all conductors and drivers.
4. He shall arrange spare staff in place of sudden absentees and ensure that all buses leave on time.
5. He shall ensure that all staff are in uniform.
6. He shall record the important events that occur during his shift in the T.I.’s diary.
7. He shall supervise the duties of the Depot Controllers working at the depot.
8. He shall keep a watch on buses due to return to the Deport and arrange for relief if a bus does not turn-up one hour after the schedule arrival.
9. He shall scrutinies SRs. Control Charts, & MTD 34.38 of all services and bring to the notice of the STI of CI for necessary action, where irregularities are noticed.
10. He shall attend to an accident, if no senior T.I. is immediately available.”
A perusal of the duties clearly go to show that the duties are predominantly supervisory. First duty is preparing monthly duty chart of the conductors and drivers and arrange for the display of the charts. The word “arrange” gives the clue for finding out whether the duty is supervisory. I am of the opinion that it is supervisory in nature. Likewise, booking duties of spare staff in place of absentees and preparing the same ones day in advance, maintaining musters of all conductors and drivers, arranging spare staff in place of sudden absentees and ensuring that all the staff are in uniform, supervising the duties of Deport Controllers, keeping a watch of buses due to return to the depot, arranging for relief if a bus does not turn up; scrutinising the SRs, Control Charts and attending to an accident if no senior T.I. is immediately available, in my opinion, are all predominately supervisory in nurture. The duties, to my mind, are clear and specific and they are supervisory in nature. In view of my finding that the duties of a Traffic Inspector are predominantly supervisory, I have to hold that he is not an “Artisan” and therefore, not a workman within the meaning of Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules. I am supported by the Judgment of A. Venkatarami Reddy, J. in Writ Petn. No. 11096 of 1988 D/- July 4, 1989 for this conclusion, which is similar to the case on hand. The learned Judge held that a ‘leading’ hand viz., the petitioners therein are not artisans and, therefore, they do not come within the meaning of “workman”.
12. It is true that Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules is not detected by ‘the Act. However, the provision with regard to the age of superannuation continued in Explanation-I to Section 3, is in pari materia. Whatever be the interpretation of Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules will equally apply to Explanation (I) to Section (3) of the Act. ‘The Act’ came into force on April 10, 1983 except Section 7 which came into force on April 29, 1989. Therefore in my opinion, the petitioner is not an ‘artisan’ and therefore, not a workman within the meaning of Explanation-I to Section 3 of ‘the Act.
13. Sri Ramarao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, then contended, placing reliance on the Judgment of Sriramulu, J. in Chitti Babu v. State of A. P. (1985) 1 Andh LT 520 that the definition of workman in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act can also be taken into consideration for the propose of determining as to who is workman under “the Act”. The learned Judge has not decided any such point in the said Judgment. The learned Judge referred to Act 23 of 1984 and on the facts and circumstances of the case held that the petitioners in those writ petitions are workman within the meaning of the Act. In fact, the Division Bench Judgment in W.A. No. 830 of 1985 dt. November 4, 1988 which was rendered on appeal against the Judgment of Sriramulu, J. makes this point very clear. The learned Judges, on appeal, clearly stated that in all those cases, the facts go to show that they are all skilled artisans and they have been working in industrial work charged establishments and therefore they definitely come within the meaning of ‘workman’ under the Act. Therefore, far from supporting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment reiterates the fact that what is to be decided in those cases is whether the petitioners in those cases were workmen within the meaning of Explanation-I of Section 3 of the Act 23 of 1984.
14. Next, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition made, in particular in para 9, indicated that the duties of Traffic Inspector, Grade II involve technical, manual and skilled duties of artisan and they are not supervisory in nature including the duties of attending to accidents, taking sketch of the accident and submitting a report to the authorities to that effect. According to the learned counsel these functions involve technical and skill and they can be discharged only by a trained person. The further duty of the Traffic Inspector i.e. checking tickets punched by the conductor and verifying the S.R. also is a skilled or at any rate manual job and therefore he comes under the definition of ‘artisan’ and therefore falls within the definition of ‘workman’. The learned counsel also contended that there is a bald denial in para 5 of the counter and not any specific denial of averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit. This submission is not tenable in my opinion. The duties of Traffic Inspectors are all stated in the A.P.S.R.T.C. Staff Operation Manual and I shall go by the said duties and not by the averments made either in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition or in the counter affidavit. In para 5 of the counter, it was mentioned on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 that an artisan is otherwise called a ‘mechanic’ and he should necessarily have some technical knowledge in handling machines and that the posts of Controllers and Traffic Inspectors did carry technical or manual and skilled duties. In view of what is stated above by me while referring to the duties of the Traffic Inspectors as mentioned in the A.P.S.R.T.C. Staff Services Manual, the petitioner is not an artisan and, therefore, will not satisfy the definition of “workman” mentioned in Explanation-I (ix) to Section 3 of the Act.
15. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the definition of ‘workman’ in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act can be imported into Act 23 of 1984. I am afraid, I may not be able to accept this contention. Act 23 of 1984 and the definition of ‘workman’ contained therein is a complete code by itself and the definition of ‘workman’ in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be imported into Act 23 of 1984. To the same effect is the Judgment of Ramchandrarao, J. in Shaikh Ali v. Commr. Municipal Corpn. of Hyderabad (supra) which has already been referred to supra. In respectfully agree with the same.
16. If every person who does every manual work is stated to come within the meaning of artisan in Explanation – I to Section 3 of Act 23 of 1984 it will be doing violence to the language. Artisan in common parlance is very well known, i.e., a carpenter, potter, electrician, mechanic and likewise. As stated in the Judgment already referred to supra (1974) 1 Andh LT 93, to be an artisan, he should be an artificer and as such, is a person who makes something as distinguished from one who does something and, therefore, every person who does something manual, in my opinion, does not come within the meaning of ‘artisan’. There must be some element of technical job.
17. For all the above reasons, this writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without cost. Advocate’s fee for first respondent is Rs. 300/-.